I'm confronted with a photograph of Elton John, waving at us alongside his civil partner David Furnish. It's illustrates an opinion piece by Cardinal Keith O'Brien, "Britain's most senior Catholic":
But can we simply redefine terms at a whim? Can a word whose meaning has been clearly understood in every society throughout history suddenly be changed to mean something else?It cannot? He frets about being labelled an intolerant bigot, but then he says things that sound intolerably bigoted. He really does want to control what words mean, but that is not how language works. And he wants to control language while simultaneously expressing fear that other people will control language. You just can't have that much, Your Eminence.
If same-sex marriage is enacted into law what will happen to the teacher who wants to tell pupils that marriage can only mean – and has only ever meant – the union of a man and a woman?
Will that teacher’s right to hold and teach this view be respected or will it be removed? Will both teacher and pupils simply become the next victims of the tyranny of tolerance, heretics, whose dissent from state-imposed orthodoxy must be crushed at all costs?...
As an institution, marriage long predates the existence of any state or government. It was not created by governments and should not be changed by them. Instead, recognising the innumerable benefits which marriage brings to society, they should act to protect and uphold marriage, not attack or dismantle it.
This is a point of view that would have been endorsed and accepted only a few years ago, yet today advancing a traditional understanding of marriage risks one being labelled an intolerant bigot....
This brings us to the one perspective which seems to be completely lost or ignored: the point of view of the child. All children deserve to begin life with a mother and father; the evidence in favour of the stability and well-being which this provides is overwhelming and unequivocal. It cannot be provided by a same-sex couple, however well-intentioned they may be.
Disingenuously, the Government has suggested that same-sex marriage wouldn’t be compulsory and churches could choose to opt out. This is staggeringly arrogant.Put that in the annals of bad analogies!
No Government has the moral authority to dismantle the universally understood meaning of marriage.
Imagine for a moment that the Government had decided to legalise slavery but assured us that “no one will be forced to keep a slave”.
Posts
139 comments:
All children deserve to begin life with a mother and father; the evidence in favour of the stability and well-being which this provides is overwhelming and unequivocal. It cannot be provided by a same-sex couple, however well-intentioned they may be.
Ann writes: "It cannot? He frets about being labelled an intolerant bigot, but then he says things that sound intolerably bigoted."
Intolerably bigoted? Really? You also didn't like his later clumsly analogy. So how's this one?
Perhaps all he meant by that above statement, is the same sort of thing people mean when they tout the superiority of natural vitamins over the synthetic kind.
I've said the same thing many times:
Call it "parriage" - call it anything you like - but the word "marriage" is taken.
it's like you guys enjoy antagonizing each other over nothing,...
Opponents of s-s marriage say government should not be able to change the meaning of marriage. Government is only slowly catching up. It is people who are changing marriage. And it's not the first time.
Orwell taught us that the meaning of words is fungible.
Time isn't frozen!
Marriage between two loving people was never the norm, either. But was made by parents who were looking for "trade." By either trading UP their property. Or prospering in other ways.
Then, of course, we saw the change where women got the right to vote. And, got recognized in their own right.
As to marriage, it ain't what it used to be.
And, it's none of my business if two women or two men want to marry each other.
Women no longer need to be beards.
Now? It's a cultural thing.
Less religion, ahead. But probably not more marriages, either.
While back in the 1950's, if a woman wore a white wedding dress, but the neighbors knew she wasn't a virgin, gossip went viral.
Today? The White Dress signifies nothing.
The problem is the lies about 'tolerance' and its one way nature when applied by leftists and PC libs.
There will be forced tolerance of gays opinions and speech. And when they obtain power, the activist gay community will inflict their intolerances on the rest and demand that others speech conform to what they deem acceptable speech when directed at a gay person, otherwise, you will be punished with either "diversity" brainwashing or you will not hold a job and we're supposed to just bend over and take it.
The religious Christians will remain targets of the gay communities bigotry and intolerance with no consequence.
I don’t agree that a refusal to agree with someone else’s choices about sex, marriage, child rearing or anything else constitutes bigotry. The definition seemingly working here would make those who argue for same sex marriage, homosexuality or anything else, bigoted. “Bigotry,” like racism is being used to deflect from the actual argument. It’s ad hominem and weak.
Whatever is may be called it is not and will not be marriage-marriage. Sorry. And definitionally gay couples cannot provide the same parenting as a man and a woman.
Bad analogy all right; it is more like mandating that "slavery" henceforth shall mean something other than slavery.
Did not Oceania have a Department for this sort of thing?
Stamp your feet all you want. No gay marriage. And we are on the road to an amendment to the US Constitution to make it so.
Why do many of my gay friends with partners adopt feminine and masculine roles in their relationships?
Closeted bigots?
I see, so disagreeing with the political pronouncements of gay people is now "intolerant bigotry". Just like disagreeing with the political promouncements of our black President is "racism".
YOu do not present an argument, just an Ad Hominem attack.
Althouses leftside is showing on this one.
If inter-racial marriage is enacted into law what will happen to the teacher who wants to tell pupils that marriage can only mean – and has only ever meant – the union of a man and a woman that are the same race?
Will that teacher’s right to hold and teach this view be respected or will it be removed? Will both teacher and pupils simply become the next victims of the tyranny of tolerance, heretics, whose dissent from state-imposed orthodoxy must be crushed at all costs?
The more things change, the more they stay the same....
Ann, your arguments for gay marriage seem to be legalistic and linguistic, but I'm not aware of you addressing the simple common sense of the traditional marriage. Society, therefore government, has a vested interest in one-man, one-woman marriage providing a stable platform for bearing and raising the next generation. It can't be redefined into something else, which is what the gay marriage trope is seeking to do. And what about the slipperly slope argument, that once gay marriage is legalized and accepted, where are the limits? If its all about "rights" or happiness for the people involved, why can't I legally marry my dog or my sister if that makes me happy?
I think the only position that honors freedom is for the goverment to get out of the marriage business.
PP,
Because homosexuality is not an immutable trait. Especially in women. Thats why it is not the same.
DO you think that gay people should be able to use the force of government to require anybody outside of government to recognize and celebrate?
While we're amending the Constitution, let's just simply add "No law of the land may mention the sex of a person."
The last post should have been:
DO you think that gay people should be able to use the force of government to require anybody outside of government to recognize and celebrate their marriage?
Pronouncements by the Catholic hierarchy tend to sound bizarre to a lot of the outside world because, well, in a 2000 word column it's hard to spell out the myriad of moral assumptions that underlie the "pronouncement".
The assumptions (in the case, Natural Law) are well thought out and systematically expressed, but they're no longer really known by the listening audience. Even the Catholic listening audience.
Can a same sex couple provide the same environment for a child as a mixed couple? If one is a believer in Natural Law (as the Church is) the answer to that is an obvious "No".
I could go for that jimbino. We can repeal the violence against women act and other gender based discriminatory laws. Lets add that no law can be made that favors skin color with preferential treatment for any job or admission to Universities.
No different from GodZero and his mandate. How dare those religious people stand by their convictions!
What Sgt TED said and this:
What the Lefties often call bigotry is very often someone with priciples standing up to the Lefties.
I'll say it again, this is about insurance, not romance. So a partner who plays around and gets AIDS can have access to his partner's insurance. Hatman's heartthrob, Dan Savage, tells us the same people demanding the "right" to marry have no intention of being faithful, so it's all a crock.
write_effort said...
Opponents of s-s marriage say government should not be able to change the meaning of marriage. Government is only slowly catching up. It is people who are changing marriage. And it's not the first time
No, it's always been man-woman.
The societies where it hasn't don't exist anymore.
Intolerably bigoted Christian is intolerably bigoted. This is my surprised face.
Crack said:
"Call it "parriage" - call it anything you like - but the word "marriage" is taken."
That is succinctly brilliant Crack. I plan to borrow this.
I welcome diversity. People should be allowed to agree with me in any way they choose.....I won't debate the issue, but I truly think that, although the Catholic Church has been demonstrably wrong on a number of issues in the past, it has also been right. Religion serves as a drag anchor. It keeps people from becoming unmoored. I don't object to gay marriage, but I'd bet anything that pretty soon gay married people will argue against the need for monogamy in their marriage.
So many madnesses, so little time.
Is a thermonuclear war in the Middle East more or less less important than gay marriage? Will perceptions of this questions change if we have an actual thermonuclear war?
Considering I can drive to Vegas and marry a woman who is at least 18 OR 105 who I "met" over the internet and get divorced at the end of the weekend, the sanctity of marriage is pretty much long gone. As long as two people care for each other, I dont see a problem. I stand firm on the 2 person limit, also no animals. It's my intolerant bigotry coming out.
@PurplePenguin,
Ah, the fallacious Gays=Negroes analogy!
The reason why prejudice against black people was wrong is because the only difference between a white guy and a black guy is the amount of melanin in their skin, and that's a trivial distinction. the whole edifice of segregation was built on a biological triviality.
It's not clear that gay vs straight is a trivial distinction. Considering how the demimonde that gay men built for themselves after Stonewall differs from straight culture, I think an argument can be made that it isn't trivial at all, but that sexuality affects every fiber of our lives.
MLK said that he wanted children to be judged not by the color of their skins but by the content of their character. Notice we still get to judge content of character. I'm not sure that being gay doesn't fall into that category.
Call it "parriage" - call it anything you like - but the word "marriage" is taken.
So the government should have marriage for straight people and parriage for gay people? And these two institutions should be, separate but equal? Am I understanding you right?
"Intolerably bigoted Christian is intolerably bigoted."
Thankfully, its only the Christians. You won't find someone in Iran writing a sternly worded letter distressed about gay marriage. Good call.
I don't object to gay marriage, but I'd bet anything that pretty soon gay married people will argue against the need for monogamy in their marriage.
That would be a shocking new revelation because no straight people have ever asked for non-monogamy in their marriage and the gays would be the absolute first because Newt Gingrich doesn't exist.
"Can a same sex couple provide the same environment for a child as a mixed couple? If one is a believer in Natural Law (as the Church is) the answer to that is an obvious "No"."
Has there been any studies about children being raised by gay parents and if that has had any effects on the children relative to those raised by a man and woman?
Not trying to be snarky if there is no real difference then what's the fuss? If there is then leave marriage as it is and create something with a different name that is the same as marriage with respects to the partners.
In the most recent Supreme Court case law, what you need to justify a sex classification in the law is "an exceedingly persuasive justification."
Has there been any studies about children being raised by gay parents and if that has had any effects on the children relative to those raised by a man and woman?
Maybe!
@cubanbob,
"Has there been any studies about children being raised by gay parents and if that has had any effects on the children relative to those raised by a man and woman?"
I think there have been such studies, and they have said there's no ill affect on the children.
Two point:
1) From the viewpoint of a Natural Law opponent of SSM, the empirical evidence would of the study would not affect his view. Sometimes, often even, wrong actions produce little damage. The actions are still wrong.
2) Do you trust the modern social science industry to produce a study that would EVER say SSM kids are all messed-up? I mean, talk about a career ender in the modern world of social science!
Hate to tell Hatman (or anyone else), but it's a little early to tell whether homosexual parents are a good thing.
Give it 20 years or so.
Andy R. said...
I don't object to gay marriage, but I'd bet anything that pretty soon gay married people will argue against the need for monogamy in their marriage.
That would be a shocking new revelation because no straight people have ever asked for non-monogamy in their marriage
Again, Hatman shows his ignorance is only exceeded by his own hysterical bigotry.
Most first time marriages (about 90%) succeed and most couples mean the words when they say them.
Aside form Hugh Hefner, perhaps Hatman can show us all these people against monogamy in marriage in this country.
@andy: I don't think any straight couple has ever gotten married to facilitate their acceptance in a wife swapping club. If you enter into marriage with this level of cynicism, the marriage is destined for the rocks. I don't object to gay marriage, but I'm opposed to cynical gay marriage.
Tokyo Mango had a piece about a guy in Tokyo who married his sex doll. Another item was about a guy married his pillow. It will be interesting to observe the deterioration of their society by a pull on this single thread.
I would like to point out that when you guessed Iran you were totally wrong.
I'm fine with changing the definition of marriage to include gay couples. But I've never understood why gay marriage is treated as automatically including gay parenting. Married or civilly united or just shacking up, gays can't make babies without extraordinary measures, while it's almost always at least a possibility for straights.
The fact that they are constantly lumped together was one reason that I couldn't make myself get worked up about it when my state amended it's constitution to specifically ban it, though I disagreed with the amendment.
Has there been any studies about children being raised by gay parents and if that has had any effects on the children relative to those raised by a man and woman?
There have, and they're positive. But, and this is a big but, I don't trust them a bit right now. They're necessarily limited because of the timeline, plus the simple fact that there's no agreed upon measure of "good parenting." Additionally, the biases of the researchers who have done the studies are clear. (If Andy R studied gay parenting, what do you think he'd find?) Personally, I'm deferring judgment on the issue of gay parenting until I've seen a lot more data.
Do people who say, "if we let gay people get married they will all ruin it by engaging in non-monogamy" think they aren't anti-gay bigots?
Do people who say, "if we let gay people get married they will all ruin it by engaging in non-monogamy" think they aren't anti-gay bigots?
So, is your argument that there is not a significant movement against monogamy in the gay world? (I have no evidence either way, but I don't think that Dan Savage is an anti-gay bigot.) Or that there is, but if you're worried about it, that's bigotry?
Lyssa, your caution about the studies is well-taken.
Poke around enough and you can find a study to vindicate just about anything and I'm willing to bet a lot of funding comes from people and organizations who want to find that homosexual child-rearing works.
As I say, wait 20 years.
Back in the days when the Boomers were all ids, there were masses of studies showing violence on TV would create a nation of homicidal maniacs.
Didn't happen, did it?
All they wanted was tolerance. They got tolerance and then all they wanted was acceptance. They got acceptance and then all they wanted was approval. They have largely gotten approval and now they want explicit endorsement and advocacy and, soon, probably funding and anyone who doesn't agree completely is worse than Hitler and I've had a bellyful.
If you want to make the case for a redefinition of civil marriage that includes gays then make the case but stop acting like it's the other side that's being extremist.
'Scuse me, should be kids, not ids.
Dr Freud is probably laughing
"Do people who say, "if we let gay people get married they will all ruin it by engaging in non-monogamy" think they aren't anti-gay bigots?"
Actually, by now, Andy, most of us aren't too concerned about your moral judgements on us at all.
What we are concerned about is the very public pronouncements by gay men that they don't honor any vows of faithfulness, while we poor old straight fools have to.
You gay guys want in the married club, but only for the goodies and not for the responsibilities. We straights, who you may notice outnumber you quite a bit, think this is a raw deal, and often vote against including you in the club.
There's morality, and then there's politics. Gay men may (just may) have right on their side, but as salesmen for your position, you suck eggs.
All they wanted was tolerance. They got tolerance and then all they wanted was acceptance. They got acceptance and then all they wanted was approval. They have largely gotten approval and now they want explicit endorsement and advocacy
We want equal rights. It's always been about equal rights. Kicking people out of the army for being gay wasn't equal rights. Being fired from a job for being gay isn't equal rights. Not being allowed to get married isn't equal rights.
We're going to get all of these things into we are equal.
What we are concerned about is the very public pronouncements by gay men that they don't honor any vows of faithfulness, while we poor old straight fools have to.
Have to? I guess no one sent Newt that memo.
@andy,
Yes, Andy, HAVE TO.
Even Newt had to go through divorce court. That's what I mean by "have to".
Gays think they want legal marriage? Just wait until they invite divorce courts into their lives.
Among straight men, very few institutions are viewed with such white-hot hatred as divorce courts by the men who go through them.
The gay community's turn will be coming soon.
Andy R. said...
All they wanted was tolerance. They got tolerance and then all they wanted was acceptance. They got acceptance and then all they wanted was approval. They have largely gotten approval and now they want explicit endorsement and advocacy
We want equal rights. It's always been about equal rights. Kicking people out of the army for being gay wasn't equal rights. Being fired from a job for being gay isn't equal rights. Not being allowed to get married isn't equal rights.
We're going to get all of these things into we are equal.
They always had the same Constitutional rights as everybody else. This is not about being equal.
Now they want protected grievance class status.
Marriage isn't a right. Service in the Armed Forces isn't a right. Employers hire at their discretion; the job belongs to them, not the employee.
What you hear from Hatman is that he wants rights no one else has.
Because homosexuality is not an immutable trait.
Perhaps for some, but not for all.
Do you wake up in the morning and decide if you are gonna be "turned on" that day by either men or women? I mean no disrespect at all, but if that is the case then you're bisexual...and not all homosexuals are bisexual.
DO you think that gay people should be able to use the force of government to require anybody outside of government to recognize and celebrate their marriage?
To the same extent that straight couples and inter-racial couples are able to do so, sure.
While I understand that you personally have no problem with inter-racial marriages, how do you deal with an employer that beleives it is "morally wrong" to mix the races and hence won't give the same benefits to an employee in such a relationship?
Remember, this is an issue of religious freedom for 'em...is it ok to intrude upon that?
Andy R. said...
So the government should have marriage for straight people and parriage for gay people? And these two institutions should be, separate but equal? Am I understanding you right?
Why not included in "parriage" all adults otherwise ineligible to marry? All same sex persons, not just homosexuals. Siblings, parents and children (still subject to incest laws regarding conduct, if you wish).
What right do you have to impose you bigoted view that "parriage" must be a sexual relationship?
Marriage has already been redefined, and straight couples led the way.
edutcher: Most first time marriages (about 90%) succeed and most couples mean the words when they say them.
That seems rather high. Got any citations?
The civil institution of marriage currently presupposes sexual complementarity. The reasons are numerous and obvious and I won't rehash them here.
The civil institution of marriage is also a mess right now. The fact that a Britney Spears can marry her pool boy and then divorce him days later without consequence while two loving, committed, monogamous gays cannot marry does indeed seem unfair. But that's not a good argument for taking the current situation and extending it to everyone.
If we're going to redefine civil marriage, let's redefine civil marriage from the ground up. let's decide what benefits to society should be coming from society's endorsement of these unions.
Most first time marriages (about 90%) succeed and most couples mean the words when they say them.
What percent of first time (straight) marriages do you think have at least one act of infidelity?
Who lives and loves another is not the government's business.
But this Catholic governance of Catholics does raise one huge point: will only parts of the Bible need to be burned or all of it?
In order to re-do this world's religion in a Marxist Ecology framework, the World treaties slipped in by the UN will demand that their own scriptures replace the ones containing hate speech written by The Ancient of Days.
What percent of first time (straight) marriages do you think have at least one act of infidelity?
And those acts of infidelity are considered meritorious by what judicial or religious or moral body?
Why, none of them!
So, your answer to the problem of marital infidelity is to just bring more bodies into the mash-up? Because the answer to sin is more sin?
Jeez, some days, I see why the Catholic Church has held up so well over 2000 years. Just consider the competition!
Here is a wonderful example of why the SC has lost respect: "an exceedingly persuasive justification."
Just how does one know what that would possibly be? Subjectivity rules the day.
Finally, I've got some advice for bigoted Christians like Cardinal Keith O'Brien. Gay people are going to get equality. This is really obvious. We won the victory over DADT. Every year more states are allowing gay marriage. Whether by legislatures, courts, or referendums, eventually all the states are going to allow gay marriage. Equality is happening and can't be stopped.
The debate is over. It's been settled. There is no reason to engage any more about natural law and the impact on children or whatever anti-gay people want to argue about. It's all been said before. Now that it is obvious what is going to happen, there is no longer a reason to try to convince the bigots.
How much damage this does to Christianity is up to the Christians. If people such as Cardinal Keith O'Brien are willing to make a principled stand in favor of bigotry then that will probably have some negative consequences. It's up to him and other bigoted Christians to make a choice.
It's 2012, this debate has been settled and the gays won.
We've kind of stumbled into trench warfare on the gay mariage, the Catholic Church and adoption rules, contraceptives symbolically and culturally. I suppose the first Mass reading today, "Your descendants shall take possession of the gates of their enemies," reported spoken to Abraham might give justification to the Church and cause for worry to it.
Andy R. said...
Most first time marriages (about 90%) succeed and most couples mean the words when they say them.
What percent of first time (straight) marriages do you think have at least one act of infidelity?
First, never judge other people by yourself.
People make mistakes, but there's a universe of difference between one mistake in an otherwise faithful marriage and entering into marriage merely as a cynical exercise in political power with no intention of abiding by its tenets.
Good luck selling the idea they're the same.
Meh - it's all irrelvant anyway. With 50% of women under the age of 30 bearing children outside of marriage, the overall attitude towards marriage among straights as been profoundly eroded over the years due to increasingly liberalized sexual "rights" and women's "empowerment".
Its not that surprising then that the majority of Americans under the age of 45 beleive that same sex marriage is just fine. Its due to the fact that no one sees marriage as anything other than a option, not a requirement for cementing a relationship. If it has no intrinsic cultural basis, then it becomes easy to redefine, easy to recast as something anyone can do with anyone!
In reality, it's Ann's and my fault, our generations legacy to the future. I suppose we'll all see the toxic legacy of raising generations of bastards sired by god knows who for god knows why.
Lucky us.
Yo Ann,
Now that circumcising baby girls is illegal, is circumcising baby boys "exceedingly justifiable"?
I guess so, as long as we have 3 Jews on SCOTUS. I can hardly wait for Muslim superstitions to become the basis for our laws!
People make mistakes, but there's a universe of difference between one mistake in an otherwise faithful marriage and entering into marriage merely as a cynical exercise in political power with no intention of abiding by its tenets.
Enough about Newt and Callista. What do you think about gay people getting married?
Historically when a culture embraces homosexuality it is near the end of it's existence. The Cardinal is right to be concerned.
Moose wrote: the overall attitude towards marriage among straights as been profoundly eroded over the years due to increasingly liberalized sexual "rights" and women's "empowerment".
Interestingly enough, marriage is currently stronger among young women who have graduated from college than among those who have not.
wyo sis: Historically when a culture embraces homosexuality it is near the end of it's existence. The Cardinal is right to be concerned.
You talking about the priesthood?
People like Andy R make me sort of embarassed to support same sex marriage.
Peter,
I'm talking about any culture that embraces homosexuality.
AndyR. "We're going to get all of these things into we are equal."
Cant produce children by sex with your same sex partner. Wont be equal there. Sorry. Stomp harder and longer and you cant have marriage-marriage. Sorry.
AndyR. It's 2012, this debate has been settled and the gays won.
Gays can adopt but they cant make babies with their partners. No debate. No "winning". Sorry.
Andy R. said...
Finally, I've got some advice for bigoted Christians like Cardinal Keith O'Brien. Gay people are going to get equality. This is really obvious. We won the victory over DADT. Every year more states are allowing gay marriage. Whether by legislatures, courts, or referendums, eventually all the states are going to allow gay marriage. Equality is happening and can't be stopped.
Of course, anyone who dares disagree with Hatman is a bigot.
First, it's not equality. It's something being imposed by the hard Left for purely political reasons and people will resist.
DADT was repealed by a hard Left Pelosi Congress to pander to the homosexual vote in advance of this year's elections.
Where it's been adopted, it's in states (all 8 of them) with heavily Democrat populations.
And in the states where referenda have been held - 31 - it has always been voted down.
Moose said...
Meh - it's all irrelvant anyway. With 50% of women under the age of 30 bearing children outside of marriage, the overall attitude towards marriage among straights as been profoundly eroded over the years due to increasingly liberalized sexual "rights" and women's "empowerment".
Its not that surprising then that the majority of Americans under the age of 45 beleive that same sex marriage is just fine. Its due to the fact that no one sees marriage as anything other than a option, not a requirement for cementing a relationship. If it has no intrinsic cultural basis, then it becomes easy to redefine, easy to recast as something anyone can do with anyone!
Disagree. That was all well and good when we were rich and fat. Now it's Depression II and it's going to be around for a while. When the Welfare State collapses, people are going to have to go back to the old ways for security.
Give it 20 years.
Peter Hoh said...
wyo sis: Historically when a culture embraces homosexuality it is near the end of it's existence. The Cardinal is right to be concerned.
You talking about the priesthood?
Only .5% molested, smarty.
But sis is absolutely right. The fight against this is the fight to save this country.
wyo sis, how broad a cultural survey are you conducting? The collapse of Rome and what else?
Gays can adopt but they cant make babies with their partners. No debate. No "winning". Sorry.
You think gays or anyone else cares whether the kids that gay parents raise are from IVF or adoption or surrogacy or any other method?
edutcher, I was not making a crack about the small number of priests who assaulted minors.
It seems arrogant for law to say the word marriage can be awarded to same sex couples at great benefit to them ... and the definition taken away from opposite sex couples at no harm to them.
Since judges have placed the issue at the constitutional level, and if SCOTUS sides with them, then IMO a constitutional amendment would be reasonable. My suggestion for wording one is:
Marriage is one man and one woman. If any state finds that unsatisfactory or unfairly exclusive that state may substitute some other institution, such as Civil Union, available to all couples. Provided enactment is by legislation or referendum, and not by judicial decree.
edutcher, in your response to wyo sis, you seem to suggest that just blocking same-sex marriage isn't enough.
What exactly are you proposing?
Marriage is one man and one woman. If any state finds that unsatisfactory or unfairly exclusive that state may substitute some other institution, such as Civil Union, available to all couples.
Anti-gay bigots think the Supreme Court will specifically adopt "separate but equal"? In 2012?
"There are 18,000 married gay and lesbian couples in California and at least 131,000 nationwide according to the 2010 census, conducted before New York state legalized same-sex marriage in July.
Rick Santorum says he'll try to unmarry all of them if he's elected president."
LOL. This is what losing looks like, anti-gay bigots.
Boris, marriage used to be the lifelong union of one man and one woman.
How did marriage get redefined such that Newt and Callista (or Woody and Soon-Yi, or Larry King and wife number seven) could be legally recognized as married?
Once marriage got redefined by straight couples as the public recognition of a temporary, romantic relationship, then it became harder to make the case that marriage should be limited to opposite sex couples.
It's hard to claim that marriage is all about the children when we allow a person to divorce his or her spouse and leave the children in order to marry the person with whom they have been having an affair. Once you sanction marriages like that, it's pretty clear that traditional standards of morality have been tossed out the window.
You can try to make the case that only same-sex couples should be bound by the rules of traditional morality, but I don't think that's a winning argument.
Peter,
"J. D. Unwin, In his book "Sex and Culture", studied 86 different societies. All 86 demonstrated a direct tie between Judeo Christian morality and the "expansive energy" of civilization.
He states,"I offer no opinion about rightness or wrongness." ... "In human records there is no instance of a society retaining its energy after a complete new generation has inherited a tradition which does not insist on pre-nuptial and post-nuptial continence."
His studies found that societies flourished during eras that valued traditional Judeo Christian morality. When sexual morals loosen the societies would decline. Returning to moral sexual standards would result in a resurgence of growth and happiness in the society.
He studied Roman, Greek, Sumerian, Moorish, Babylonian, and Anglo-Saxon civilizations and many others.
It's hard to argue with truths like that.
"It cannot? He frets about being labelled an intolerant bigot, but then he says things that sound intolerably bigoted."
So, he is right to fret. No?
People, don't you see? Marriage is a bullshit "right". No one seems to value it *except gay people*. And maybe some really unhip straights.
The war it over, marriage is a fashion item. Not the basis for civilisation for like the last 5,000 years.
Just give it up, marriage is so... gay!
what you need to justify a sex classification in the law is "an exceedingly persuasive justification."
One would think -- foolishly and wrong apparently in our relativistic culture -- that it was exceedingly compelling and conclusive that a man cannot be a mother. Not even when that man asserts the status of "marriage" to another man, still, neither one can be a mother. And neither man can be a woman.
One would think that no one would need to be persuaded on this, that it was self-evident, that a same-sex marriage of, for example, a man and a man cannot, by its very nature, provide to a child their right to be raised by a father and a mother.
Then again, we have long ago jettisoned logic and reason -- including the "right reason" upon which authentic law is based and which has recognized since the beginning of time that "marriage" is and only can be the union of a man and woman.
wyo sis, if the problem is "pre-nuptial and post-nuptial continence," why single out the tolerance of homosexuality as one of the signs of imminent cultural collapse?
Bender, where, outside the UN convention on the rights of the child, can you find the right of a child to be raised by a father and a mother?
Is it in one of the penumbras?
AndyR. -- It's 2012, this debate has been settled and the gays won.
Michael -- Gays can adopt but they cant make babies with their partners.
Ah, yes, here we see the limits of Andy's declaration of truth by fiat. The only way a homosexual can reproduce -- the only way -- is by heterosexual means, even if it also includes the mechanistic and unhuman participation of laboratories.
Peter Hoh said...
edutcher, I was not making a crack about the small number of priests who assaulted minors.
I misunderstood. My bad.
edutcher, in your response to wyo sis, you seem to suggest that just blocking same-sex marriage isn't enough.
What exactly are you proposing?
Not proposing anything. Homosexuals have the same Constitutional rights as everyone else.
These new "rights" Hatman and the Lefties propose are for political ends only. And, since human nature hasn't changed that much in the last 5000 years or so, none of this is going to work. I'm just saying that this agenda should be fought and defeated.
IMHO, it's one of the reasons why the teacher unions don't like teaching history. You find out that a lot of the Lefty agenda has been tried and it's failed.
Andy R. said...
Marriage is one man and one woman. If any state finds that unsatisfactory or unfairly exclusive that state may substitute some other institution, such as Civil Union, available to all couples.
Anti-gay bigots think the Supreme Court will specifically adopt "separate but equal"? In 2012?
No, moron, under the X Amendment, marriage is a state purview. That's why Willie Whitewater's DOMA was such a joke.
There are 18,000 married gay and lesbian couples in California and at least 131,000 nationwide according to the 2010 census, conducted before New York state legalized same-sex marriage in July.
Rick Santorum says he'll try to unmarry all of them if he's elected president.
LOL. This is what losing looks like, anti-gay bigots.
No. Violation of the X Amendment. He pulled the same thing in the Terri Schiavo case.
You don't even know what your rights are, do you?
Hatman is what losing really looks like.
Has anyone else noticed how the gays have become the majority in this country the past two decades ?
A common theme in literature and movies is our culture believes children should be raised by their own parents because that is what they want and that is what is best for them. Agree with the factual basis of that belief or not, but it's presence is undeniable.
The connection to children is obvious. The rule in our culture was always ... get married to produce children.
Having children was never a requirement to be married. And culture never had any problem with children being raised by other people when necessary, regardless of marriage.
So the connection between producing children and opposite sex marriage is reasonable given the history.
@Bender, @Peter, etc
See what I mean about trying to discuss Natural Law based morality?
For those who finder Bender's take somewhat heavy handed ask yourself the question "Is there a human nature?"
If the answers is "Yes, but not what Bender thinks it is" then tell us the difference.
If there's not (and this I believe is the Left's not so secret teaching) then there really isn't anything to be the recipient of Jefferson's inalienable rights granted to us by our Creator, is there? At that point, screw SSM, you're against the whole American Republic!
Peter,
I shouldn't have to explain this, but I will. Homosexuality is part and parcel of the problem of sexual immorality and thus part and parcel of the decline in society. This is not rocket science, but you do have to be smart enough to avoid the childish nit picking in which you are indulging.
Here's a more specific quote that might help you. "decadent cultures display seven typical characteristics: Men reject spiritual and moral development as the leaders of families; men begin to neglect their families in search of material gain; men begin to engage in adulterous relationships or homosexual sex; women begin to devalue the role of motherhood and homemaker; husbands and wives begin to compete with each other and families disintegrate; selfish individualism fragments society into warring factions; and men and women lose faith in God and reject all authority over their lives. Soon, moral anarchy reigns. When the family collapses, the society soon follows."
Once marriage got redefined . . .
Yes, that's just it. One of history's great redefiners of marriage was one Henry VIII, who once he could no longer have children by his real wife, Catherine of Aragon (daughter of Queen Isabella of Spain), because of her age, he simply decreed that the marriage was null and void, so that he could then marry the woman that he had been whoring around with. (Are we allowed to call Henry a "whore" or Anne Boleyn? Certainly Henry liked to use and abuse various women sexually, just like men today who are so enthusiastic for the contraceptive mandate so that they too can use and exploit as many women as they want without consequences.)
The problem was, however, that the Catholic Church kept insisting that, in fact, Catherine was still married to Henry. The Church's refusal to bend to the King's will did not make him happy, so he imposed all sorts of mandates to force the Church to acknowledge that he was not married to Catherine.
Many did cave in. But many did not. So that is when Henry started chopping off heads and seizing Church assets and properties, like hospitals and schools.
Fast forward 500 years, and history repeats itself with contemporary bigots bent on yet another anti-Catholic persecution. But make no mistake, the Church as been through this before, and we have a long institutional memory.
Sorry, Andy, but it is the Church which is built on Rock, not your fanciful foundation of sand. The Church has withstood far worse and shall prevail until the end of time.
"If inter-racial marriage is enacted into law what will happen to the teacher who wants to tell pupils that marriage can only mean – and has only ever meant – the union of a man and a woman that are the same race?"
Inter-racial marriage occurred long before DEMOCRATS banned it with Jim Crow laws.
edutcher, for what it's worth, I favor this happening through the legislatures and ballot initiatives, not the courts. It's one of the significant differences between Andy's position and mine. I have not attempted to argue for a right to same-sex marriage.
wyo sis, you articulate a fine Natural Law position. I just don't see it being compatible with individual liberty and the modern capitalist economy.
@Bender,
Careful there on the RC triumphalism. It doesn't sell well.
Remember that we are bound as Christians & Catholics to bring other souls to Christ through our example and our words. That includes Andy, BTW.
When we deal with those outside our tradition, we must speak to them in words they can understand, and not drop the "truth" on them like our Faith is a test in a pre-calc class.
As long as we do not betray the Gospel, we must be as St. Paul says "All things to all men".
@ Peter
"wyo sis, you articulate a fine Natural Law position. I just don't see it being compatible with individual liberty and the modern capitalist economy."
Do you see it ending any differently that the numerous civilizations I cite?
"Modern" is just another word we use to disguise reality. We can "modern our way into the same fix the 86 other cultures found themselves, but the result is the same.
I think it's better to be wise than modern, but I'm clearly in the minority.
You think gays or anyone else cares whether the kids that gay parents raise are from IVF or adoption or surrogacy or any other method?
Are you saying that there is not a single gay man in the world that does not care that he cannot have a child by and with his boyfriend?
That no matter how much they might want it, no matter how many laws they might pass, a man and a man cannot have a child together?
Because I gotta tell you -- there are a LOT of man-women unions where it means very much for the man to have a child by and with the woman, that their children be the biological union of each of them. The man does not want just any child -- he wants her child; and the woman does not want just any baby, she wants to carry his baby within her.
It doesn't bother a single gay guy that this is IMPOSSIBLE? That the best that a man-man couple can do is to bring in a third party, a woman, so that one (but not both) can have a child? a child not with the other man, but the woman's child? Not a single gay cares about that?
Not a single gay cares that their relationship, their union, is inherently sterile and barren?
And, Peter and Andy as well,
We could have a discussion about exactly what individual liberty means as well.
You have something of a point there YH, but please tell it to King Henry Obama and his minister Kathleen Cromwell.
@bender,
"King Henry Obama and his minister Kathleen Cromwell."
But they, too, shall pass, and while I agree they must be resisted on the mandate issue, I really believe that either by the courts or the ballot, we (i.e. the community of believers of every stripe) will win this handily.
But, what I said in the previous post is our duty now & forever.
Yes, and my point being that the Church "will not bend to the marriage" (of same-sex couples) or to the mandate, to paraphrase Thomas More, martyr. The Church will seek to explain and persuade and be a light of truth in all charity, but she will not bend.
Bender
You're right and, if the church should ever bend, you can rest assured that God will not.
This is distasteful to ask, but since we are on the subject of the church as an unchanging rock
1. Which wife is Newt still married to: Jackie or Marianne?
2. During their affair did Callista use bc? Or maybe Newt when he was still a Protestant took care of that, which leads to
3. Did she enter a marriage she knew would not produce children.
Callista, who I have no ill-will toward, illustrates what the modern conservative Catholic looks like.
wyo sis, please, go ahead and tell me what individual liberty means.
I don't care if people want to marry fish or farm animals. Why can't the US mandate civil marriages for everyone. Then if you want to have a huge church wedding, go for it. But if that church refuses to marry you, it's the church's perrogative. It kills me that if someone doesn't get their way you're accused of bigotry, racism, or (gasp!) conservatism. Get over it and grow up. As much as liberals want it, they won't be able to control peoples minds and hearts.
Individual liberty indicates that a person may chose a behavior, but they may not choose the consequences of the behavior. Consequences, like gravity, are immutable. People have learned to live with gravity carefully because the consequences are immediate. The consequences for most behaviors are not so clear or immediate, but they will happen sooner or later. We're supposed to be thoughtful about our choices and take consequences into account. This means many things we can do are things we shouldn't do. It's foolish to refuse to accept consequences, because they are NOT AT ALL changed by our personal whims and feelings of unfairness.
@write_effort,
According to canon law, Newt is still married to wifey #1.
Is there a point to your question? Newt isn't Santorum, and isn't running on an explicitly religious message, last I checked.
There seems to be idea on the secular Left that pointing out that Christians are sinners is some big whoop. If we weren't sinners, there wouldn't be a need for a Church, would there?
Could you please explain by what reason one has to be a saint before one can have moral standards? It seems to me that one can have standards and yet be painfully aware that one falls short of them. Matter of fact, I think that's what a conscience is.
Gosh, I wish that the Democrats were as rigorous on making sure every limousine liberal who wants to raise my taxes was embeggared before he could open his mouth!
More business for divorce attorneys, it's not a bit altruistic or diverse..just greed. Fuck milleniums of civilization, we need to bill more hours.
YH, my point is not Callista as a person but rather how she illustrates the modern Catholic. This isn't a "we are all sinners" situation. The modern Catholic accepts both divorce and birth control. And at some point they will accept s-s marriage. The Church's position is in practice irrelevant.
On a personal level I think CG is pretty interesting. French horn and all...
Why does medical marijuana win ballot initiatives and gay marriage lose them?
Wait, now Andy R. is gay? He keeps referring to gays as "we", so I guess he's saying he is. I don't believe it. Would any gay guy in America allow himself to be photographed wearing that hat at that angle? Even if it's not supposed to be a self-portrait, would any gay guy allow that picture to be associated with him in any way?
"Not a single gay cares that their relationship, their union, is inherently sterile and barren?"
Really a bizarre comment. As if gays are not intellectually competent human beings and realistic about the facts of biology. There are also plenty of heterosexual couples who deal with fertility issues -- they accept the fact and spend tons of money to conceive artificially, or they spend tons of money to adopt.
People get married because they want to make a commitment to each other that is recognized by the community. They no long get married to have sex which they can easily do without marriage, or to have children which they can do without marriage.
The perceived threat to our civilization because of gay marriage is as they say, closing the barn door after the horses have escaped. I personally don't see any threat to a committed heterosexual couple if a ss couple gets married. It means the same thing to the individuals involved.
No one is claiming the couples are equal, just that they deserve to be treated equally under the law. The studies I have seen show that ssm couples raise kids who turn out normal, heterosexual, and more tolerant people. They benefit from the fact that they are never accidents and their parents really wanted them.
Regarding the distrust of these studies and studies of the past warning against violence on TV, and the notion they were wrong because we did not produce a generation of murdering maniacs, need I remind you of the continual stories of children massacred at schools these days? We certainly never imagined the Columbines or Virginia Techs, hardly news anymore, or metal detectors at schools patrolled by police back in the 50's. Maybe those studies had some validity after all.
The only cogent argument against ssm I have seen is the religious one. If your religious beliefs forbid you to marry someone of the same sex, don't do it. I can't see keeping the First Amendment if you want to impose your religious doctrine on others.
Marriage -- a committed relationship based on love and mutual self giving is an honorable state, stable relationships, and has very little to do with genitals or gender identity.
Incidentally there are plenty of heterosexual relationships where the gender roles are reversed. Michelle Bachmann comes to mind. Her husband was the one giving their daughter prom dress advice and getting the kids ready for school in the morning.
YoungHegelian, I would not argue that one has to be blameless before one can put forth a moral standard.
I am arguing that once you allow a man to divorce his wife and marry his affair partner, the leap to allowing same-sex marriage isn't that great.
In fact, one could argue that it's smaller. The person who divorces his wife to marry his affair partner has violated the very essence of marriage. Rather than penalize him, our law is on his side.
wyo sis @3:40, that sounds like a justification for nanny-statism.
@Peter,
I am arguing that once you allow a man to divorce his wife and marry his affair partner, the leap to allowing same-sex marriage isn't that great.
The Law has allowed such a thing, but the Catholic Church has not. There's no hypocrisy here.
Newt Gingrich lives in a state of sin. But showing him the door is not what Christian charity is about.
No Church official is holding NG marriages up as examples of moral probity. Would it make you feel better, if you want the Church to tread gently in the public square, if they find yet another target to denounce from the pulpit?
Peter
How do you get nanny statism out of that?
YoungHegelian, I am not charging that the Catholic Church is showing hypocrisy. I may have not made it clear enough, but the "you" in "once you allow a man . . . " was not meant to suggest that the Church has signed off on these sorts of marriages.
The Catholic Church is well within its rights to define marriage as it sees fit. It is well within its rights to advocate that its view of marriage be enshrined in law.
But the Catholic Church does not decide marriage law in the U.S. That's left to the states.
People have the right to petition the states to change those laws. This will not be decided because Natural Law says that same-sex marriage is impossible. It will be decided when people like this are able to persuade the majority of voters that same-sex marriage makes sense.
Peter....I would argue that since the pro-gay marraige forces have declared a scortched policy, that makes it everyones (who is for traditional marriage) business to stop gay marriage in all cases.
Do I need to retype the list of where people who oppose gay marriage have been dicriminated against? It starts with the photographer in NM, goes through Catholic Charities in Boston and Chicago, makes a stop at a couple Bed & Breakfasts in Illinos, and goes on and on and on.
wyo sis, it sounds like Bloomberg explaining why restaurants shouldn't be allowed to add salt to their dishes.
Individual liberty has nothing to the fact that one can't, in your words, "choose the consequences of the behavior."
What exactly are the public policy implications for your view that individual liberty does not protect us from the consequences of our behaviors?
If you meant none, then why write what you wrote? We're talking about public policy, not what a bunch of Natural Law philosophers and churchmen think.
"We cannot afford to indulge this madness."
'A headline I read at Memeorandum, and clicked on without knowing the actual subject. In the fraction of a second while I waited for the webpage to appear, I guessed Iran. Iran and its nuclear aspirations. I was wrong. '
Is the media asking Obama about Iran? What IS the big subject of the day? I'm surprised you're surprised.
The Catholic Church is well within its rights to define marriage as it sees fit.
NO. NO, THE CHURCH DOES NOT HAVE ANY RIGHT TO DEFINE MARRIAGE AS IT SEES FIT. Like the rest of humanity, the Church is bound by Truth and by Love.
It is not a matter of opinion, it is not a matter of policy, it is not a matter of arbitrary preferences. The Church is bound and obligated by love and truth. The Church cannot decree marriage to be anything than what it is.
Not even the Catholic Church can define marriage "as it sees fit." The Church can only define marriage as right reason (as enlightened by revelation) say it is, caritas et veritas.
Chuck, I support same-sex marriage, but I don't support efforts to demonize opponents. I have been quite clear about that in other threads.
I don't think I need to apologize for arguments that I'm not making and for actions that I'm not taking, but to be clear, here goes:
If there are florists who don't want to sell flowers to gay people, I see no reason why they should be compelled to do so.
The Catholic Charities adoption issue is a little more complicated. The board of Catholic Charities decided to go ahead with adoptions -- the church hierarchy vetoed that. For what it's worth, I'm not convinced that a church-run adoption agency has to provide services to same-sex couples.
Public accommodations is a trickier issue. There is established law in this area, and I will have to defer to those better able to explain the law. I don't know if bed-and-breakfasts are considered to be offering a public accommodation.
Dave: Is the media asking Obama about Iran?
As a matter of fact, yes.
Link.
"If there are florists who don't want to sell flowers to gay people, I see no reason why they should be compelled to do so"
Peter, that is not what is happening. You need to change the above to say the government has put a florist out of business because she refused to go to a gay wedding and set up the flowers there.
What the pro-gay marriage forces are doing is trying to force anti-gay marriage people into taking action. For example, in Cleveland, a gay couple was not refused service at a bakery, but they demanded special cupcakes be made to celebrate their wedding. The owner said she will be happy to sell them anything they want, but she will not do a special order where she was asked to put the rainbow flag on cup cakes and use icing to make statements promoting gay marriage. The city kicked her out of the building for that.
Would you require an African-American to provide services for a white supremcy group?
In Illinois, a gay couple wanted to have their "wedding" at a bed and breakfast. The owner said she is fine if they stay at her business. She has homosexual couples stay there on a regular basis. But she doesn't believe in gay marriage so will not host the wedding.
The state (or is it a city?) is trying to close her bed and breakfast down for that.
Doesn't that scare you?
"What exactly are the public policy implications for your view that individual liberty does not protect us from the consequences of our behaviors?"
The constitution comes as close as any document in history to preserving individual liberty. You can't make a case for nanny statism in the constitution.
I don't think the state can make people choose wisely. The state can, however preserve individual liberty as defined by the constitution. I don't believe you can take natural law out of human behavior. You can call it anything you want to call it, but you can't change the truth of it.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is about as good as you're going to get in this life. If a person chooses to inhibit their own liberty by making dangerous decisions the state can only interfere to the extent that others are directly harmed by them.
I'm not advocating for government to tell people what to choose. I do think it's unproductive and ultimately damaging to protect people from realizing the consequences of their choices.
To use your salt example. I don't care who uses salt or how much they use. That's their decision, but I don't think the state should be obligated to step in and pay for the mitigation of the results.
The state has no money except the money it's citizens give it through taxes. If it's wrong for a person to steal money to pay for a personal choice, it's also wrong for the state to use money it gets from other people to pay for that person's personal choice.
Cardinal Keith O'Brian is spot on. There's not one statement he's uttered that I can disagree with.
Who gives these rights to any short-lived individual or to a government that's also comprised of term-limited men and women to change the laws of God? If you don't believe in God, that's fine; your time will certainly be up before His will. And after a few dozen generations of pathetic humans come and go, so then will 'Gay' marriage pass, too. As it has before.
Hmmmph. People behaving as animals, because they've too much overweening pride and self-inflated ego to even recognize their own God-given souls.
Chuck, I oppose efforts to punish business owners for their refusal to sell rainbow cupcakes or host ceremonies in their B&Bs. Is that clear enough?
If you want me to get more particular, it would help to include links. For what it's worth, I wasn't able to find a gay cupcake story in Cleveland. Perhaps you got Cleveland and Indianapolis confused.
You made the very specific claim that the baker got kicked out of the building. Can you provide a link?
I am very much in favor of keeping facts straight.
Chuck66 has a lot of tall tales. Never seems to run out of them.
I see a lot of the same arguments and fears repeated over and over. I know it's stuff that has to be aired out so people will be comfortable with the change and not see it as a threat to our civilization.
For instance, for a while Rick Santorum was preaching about how gay marriage was a threat to straight marriage, but later I heard him acknowledge that divorce has been a far greater threat to the institution of marriage than gay marriage could ever be.
He also raised a lot of objections based on the bestiality argument, why not marry your dog, etc. which was also brought up the the church statement. Two human beings, individuals of same sex in a committed relationship, is a far cry from having sex with other species. Santorum has dropped that offensive language as well.
I've also seen discussions about gay marriage leading to polygamy -- another non sequitur since a union of two individuals is consistent with our values of the equality of individuals. Polygamy, on the other hand, falls into the value system of tribal societies, inequality of partners, and humans reduced to property.
Is Santorum still against gay marriage? Yes, but his arguments have been centered on his religious beliefs.
And face it, there are many different religions and religious interpretation
I guess I'm out of the loop. They started talking about Iran on Friday? Is that right?
Back to the subject, as a conservative I don't care about gay marriage either way. It's just not a priority for me at all. Whatever everyone else wants to do about it is fine.
R. Chatt: another non sequitur since a union of two individuals is consistent with our values of the equality of individuals. Polygamy, on the other hand, falls into the value system of tribal societies, inequality of partners, and humans reduced to property.
Polygamy has been with us throughout history. The women I saw from the Yearning For Zion ranch a couple of years ago didn't sound very oppressed to me.
As for gay marriage, I'm personally in favor of letting two adults do whatever they want, but it's splitting hairs to argue that this doesn't open the door to polygamy (letting more than two adults do whatever they want).
In fact it opens the door to a lot of other things. I may be older than you but I have often heard of girls as young as 13 getting married down south with their parents' consent. (Wikipedia says the age of consent for most states in the 1880s was 10 to 12.) I wouldn't be surprised to see pressure to lower the age of consent, given that the age of puberty keeps dropping all the time. I used to have a media handbook from a gay group which advocated lowering the age of gay consent, pointing out, if I remember correctly, that it was 14 in Germany at the time.
Ann, there are certain topics -- like this one where you make me go Huh!.
Your moral equivalency between someone defending the current definition and re-definer is breathtaking.
Gene, why don't you do a little research into age of marriage laws. There is quite a bit of variety currently, despite candidate Santorum's claim that we can't have 50 different marriage laws in this country.
If I recall correctly, the lowest age that a girl can get married -- with court and parental approval -- is not in a southern state.
There is no such thing as 'gay marriage'. It has no reality. It is the result of some people appropriating Humpty Dumpty's principals of discourse: "When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
If a bartender offers you a drink made of orange soda and yogurt, it is NOT a 'martini', no matter how vehemently he insists that it is. It has the wrong ingredients.
Realities exist before we find words to describe these realities. For time out of mind we have used the word 'marriage' to describe a particular type of male/female pair bonding. (Not all male/female pairings are 'marriages') No pairing between members of the same sex can ever be a 'marriage' because the specifications for that particular type of pairing have not been met.
All this being said, you may go ahead and proceed according to your fantastic view of reality. Your 'gay' pairings are sterile. You are weeding yourselves out of the human gene pool. Natural selection will have the last word.
Peter Hoh: Gene, why don't you do a little research into age of marriage laws. There is quite a bit of variety currently, despite candidate Santorum's claim that we can't have 50 different marriage laws in this country.
Have you ever considered reading what someone writes before commenting on his post?
Sorry, Gene. Didn't mean for that to sound as snarky as it did. And the comment re. Santorum wasn't intended to suggest that you are allied with his opinions.
You wrote: I may be older than you but I have often heard of girls as young as 13 getting married down south with their parents' consent.
New Hampshire, as best I can tell, still allows girls as young as 13 to marry. And based on the wording of the summaries I've read, it's not clear that parental consent is required. Link.
Pretty bizarre.
Post a Comment